Sorry for coming back to this, I think I missed this new requirement initially (or I skipped this thread, I don't remember...). On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 23:28:11 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes: > > Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:22:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > >> It's an additional requirement over the current Policy statement, but > >> according to previous statements by ftpmaster, it reflects what's > >> currently being enforced during NEW processing. > > Sorry, this isn't completely correct. It's a *relaxation* of the existing > requirement in one significant sense, and a strengthening in a different > sense. > > Policy currently says: > > A copy of the file which will be installed in > /usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the > source package. > > So in other words, any package that does anything other than install the > debian/copyright file from the source package into the appropriate place > in the binary package is buggy according to Policy currently. > > Now, I know that some package maintainers like to provide separate > copyright files for different binary packages if, say, one is under the > GPL and another is under the BSD license. Currently, Policy says that > they should not do that. I'm proposing relaxing that requirement and > allowing them to do so, provided that debian/copyright still documents the > copyright and license information for the source package as a whole. > > I'm also proposing changing the requirement for debian/copyright from a > should to a must. I believe that reflects existing practice. A package > that has no debian/copyright file is not going to make it into the archive > now. > Is this actually true? e.g. libxcb does 'cat debian/copyright.debian COPYING > debian/copyright' at build time, and that's never been an issue for NEW processing afaik... Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature